Dataset Information

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

SUBMITTER: Zee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6206892 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Zee Jarcy J Zhao Junhui J Subramanian Lalita L Perry Erica E Bryant Nicole N McCall Margie M Restovic Yanko Y Torres Delma D Robinson Bruce M BM Pisoni Ronald L RL Tentori Francesca F

BMC nephrology 20181029 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen ...[more]

PMID: 30373558

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesAssisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study by linking a quality assurance dataset to administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were accrued between January 1, 2004 and July 9, 2013. Individuals were grouped into assisted peritoneal dialysis (family or home care assisted) or in-center hemodialysis on the basis of their first outpatient dialysis modality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score was used to create a sample in which the baseline covariates were well balanced.ResultsThe study included 872 patients in the in-center hemodialysis group and 203 patients in the assisted peritoneal dialysis group. Using an intention to treat approach, patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis had a similar hospitalization rate of 11.1 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 9.4 to 13.0) compared with 12.9 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 16.1) in the hemodialysis group (P=0.19). Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis were more likely to be hospitalized for dialysis-related reasons (admitted for 2.4 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 3.2] compared with 1.6 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3] in the hemodialysis group; P=0.04). This difference was partly explained by more hospital days because of peritonitis. Modality switching was associated with high rates of hospital days per year.ConclusionsAssisted peritoneal dialysis was associated with similar rates of all-cause hospitalization compared with in-center hemodialysis. Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis who experienced peritonitis and technique failure had high rates of hospitalization.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveWe sought to compare outcomes of patients receiving dialysis after cardiothoracic surgery on the basis of dialysis modality (intermittent hemodialysis [HD] vs peritoneal dialysis [PD]).Study designThis was a retrospective analysis.Setting & participantsIn total, 590 patients with kidney failure receiving intermittent HD or PD undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or valvular cardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic were included.ExposureThe patients received PD versus HD (intermittent or continuous).OutcomesOur primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, days in the intensive care unit, the number of intraoperative blood transfusions, postsurgical pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infection, and a composite of the following 4 in-hospital events: death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection.Analytical approachWe used χ2, Fisher exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and t tests, Kaplan-Meier survival, and plots for analysis.ResultsAmong the 590 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 62 (11%) were receiving PD, and 528 (89%) were receiving intermittent HD. Notably, 30-day Kaplan-Meier survival was 95.7% (95% CI: 93.9-97.5) for HD and 98.2% (95% CI: 94.7-100) for PD (P = 0.30). In total, 75 patients receiving HD (14.2%) and 1 patient receiving PD (1.6%) had a composite of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection) (P = 0.005). Out of 62 patients receiving PD, 16 (26%) were converted to HD.LimitationsRetrospective analyses are prone to residual confounding. We lacked details about nutritional data. Intensive care unit length of stay was used as a surrogate for volume status control. Patients have been followed in a single health care system. The HD cohort outnumbered the PD cohort significantly.ConclusionsWhen compared with PD, HD does not appear to improve outcomes of patients with kidney failure undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Patients receiving PD had a lower incidence of a composite outcome of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infections).

Project description:Background and objectivesThere is conflicting evidence comparing peritonitis rates among patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or automated peritoneal dialysis (APD). This study aims to clarify the relationship between peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality (APD versus CAPD) and the risk of developing PD-associated peritonitis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis study examined the association between PD modality (APD versus CAPD) and the risks, microbiology, and clinical outcomes of PD-associated peritonitis in 6959 incident Australian PD patients between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2011, using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Median follow-up time was 1.9 years.ResultsPatients receiving APD were younger (60 versus 64 years) and had fewer comorbidities. There was no association between PD modality and time to first peritonitis episode (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for APD versus CAPD, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.91 to 1.07; P=0.71). However, there was a lower hazard of developing Gram-positive peritonitis with APD than CAPD, which reached borderline significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00; P=0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the risk of hospitalizations (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.35; P=0.22), but there was a nonsignificant higher likelihood of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.88; P=0.11) at the time of the first episode of peritonitis for patients receiving APD. For all peritonitis episodes (including subsequent episodes of peritonitis), APD was associated with lower rates of culture-negative peritonitis (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94; P=0.002) and higher rates of gram-negative peritonitis (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.46; P=0.01).ConclusionsPD modality was not associated with a higher likelihood of developing peritonitis. However, APD was associated with a borderline reduction in the likelihood of a first episode of Gram-positive peritonitis compared with CAPD, and with lower rates of culture-negative peritonitis and higher rates of Gram-negative peritonitis. Peritonitis outcomes were comparable between both modalities.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.MethodA mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.ConclusionsAlthough there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.Trial registrationThe full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Dataset Information

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Publications

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets